Peak Oil 101

[K-Dog]

Down to $67/bbl today!  Can we make it to the $50s?  How low can they go?

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-prices-dip-extended-opec-supply-cuts-highlight-weak-demand-2024-12-06/

Oil prices fall on supply glut fears despite OPEC+ output cut extension

RE

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/BTL/2024/01-brentprice/article.php

[RE]

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/BTL/2024/01-brentprice/article.php

$79?  That's $14 over the price BoA came up with and Tdos came up with also in his analysis as most likely.  So it seems improbable because of that, and seems improbable also because of weak demand in China and the political mess in Europe.  The House of Saud is also slow with production cuts, so about the only thing propping up the price is fear of Vlad the Impaler and the usual Israeli-Palestinian nonsense.

I'm in the camp with BoA and Tdos.  It will be in the $60s IMHO.  Although it might touch 50s at some point, I din't think it can possibly stay that low very long.  We'd need a full on depression for that.  Which isn't impossible either, but I think it's still too soon for that.

Exciting times tho.

RE

[TDoS]

Of course you don't. You have your way of figuring out problems, it has worked for you since you were 4 and smarter than everyone around you. You've decided you are correct, therefore you are correct. All quite self referential.

First you drag Gail Tverberg into this out of the blue and now you get all huffy because I find it unlikely there is no agenda underlying this poll?

Gail was referenced as a specific example of the kind of "expert" that supplies articles to places that can't get their hands on the experts, or afford them, to get the quality of answers similar to the one I provided.

I don't get huffy. Ever. Has no place in the legal system as a defendant, doesn't work in the harsh reality of the oilfield, certainly scientific research cares NOTHING about emotion of any kind, and the obvious origins on your thoughts on market manipulation I've already explained.

None of this has anything to do with the article or the mismatch between the BoA numbers and the Reuters poll numbers.

You asked for something specific from me, and I provided it, and to an order of magnitude of more precision than the ones you pulled from the press. You're welcome.

[RE]

Gail was referenced as a specific example of the kind of "expert" that supplies articles to places that can't get their hands on the experts, or afford them, to get the quality of answers similar to the one I provided.

Well maybe, but she wasn't referenced here by name and I doubt she was one of the people polled by Reuters.  You already agreed Reuters has plenty of money and resources to afford quality experts also, so it's not a question of insufficient funds.  Therefore, there must be another explanation underlying the motive for publishing such a poll.

I don't get huffy. Ever.

You should read your own prose for tone.

Of course you don't. You have your way of figuring out problems, it has worked for you since you were 4 and smarter than everyone around you. You've decided you are correct, therefore you are correct. All quite self referential.

Huffiness in extremis. lol

RE

[TDoS]

Of course you don't. You have your way of figuring out problems, it has worked for you since you were 4 and smarter than everyone around you. You've decided you are correct, therefore you are correct. All quite self referential.

Huffiness in extremis. lol
RE

Indeed. My observation of this personal characteristic of yours is now more than a decade old. And as it has been carved into your psyche from an early age, it is a powerful characteristic of how you work. Once that fact is established it can then be taken advantage of. If you can just be led to the point where YOU convince yourself you know the answer, it becomes immutable.

It isn't as though this hasn't been known forever.

1) "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

[RE]

Of course, you observe I know how smart I am and I observe you get huffy about it.  Has nothing to do with the reasons behind the publication of a Reuters poll that is so out of line with other easily found estimates of what the price will be.  Far as mistakes are concerned, we seem to agree Reuters made a mistake with their numbers and you made a mistake dragging Gail Tverberg in out of the blue and I admit to making a mistake trying to hold a civil conversation with you.  Otherwise I'm not sure how Sun Tzu's strategy is particularly helpful here.

RE

[TDoS]

Of course, you observe I know how smart I am and I observe you get huffy about it. 

I have no objection to your intelligience.Stupid people are far more likely to be uncertain in their thoughts and actions, and therefore more random in their responses to stimuli. Less predictable.  I revel in your certainty because of your intelligience. I've been working with people at least as smart as you since I graduated college and ran into my first Harvard grad oil company owner. And his CalTech cousin. And his Harvard law roommate. And the BCG folks who came up with the money to buy bankrupt oil companies which were then handed off to me to manage. 

... I'm not sure how Sun Tzu's strategy is particularly helpful here.
RE

Indeed. Which is the entire point. 

[RE]

Indeed. Which is the entire point. 

No, the entire point is that we are being fed a bunch of bullshit in the dissemination of this Reuters poll.  Your predictable response to that is to distract from the point by making this about your strategic application of ancient Chinese war strategy to a personal war where I represent the enemy.

The distraction doesn't illuminate the topic, so there's no reason to further pursue the discussion.  However, you did manage to make it through this one without violating any rules seriously enough to warrant cooler time, which is some progress.  You may eventually make some kind of worthwhile contribution to a discussion.  Keep up the good work!   

RE

[TDoS]

No, the entire point is that we are being fed a bunch of bullshit in the dissemination of this Reuters poll.
RE

Please provide your proof for that statement.

Other than you believe it to be true of course.

[RE]

Oh good grief.  It's $15 more than your own analysis, the analysis from BoA and the analysis from the EIA of a glut in supply that will extend for a decade.  Then there is the current dogshit state of the Chinese economy and the economic basket cases of France and Germany.
                                                                                                                                                                   
That's enough evidence to convince me it's crap.

RE

[RE]

Some folks from the old days are still around.  Gail Tverberg is still producing her actuarial charts and basically repeating old newz here, that we're on the per capita energy downslope and 2025 will see recession and an oil glut.

Her last chart seems to predict Nuke energy will take over and produce everything necessary when the FFs run out.  This does not seem likely.



RE

[K-Dog]

There is no question that, in stark contrast to the climate-focused Biden administration, the people Trump is surrounding himself with will carry out the fossil fuel industry's wish list to juice oil production and demand for its products. They are poised to roll back regulations that favor electric vehicles and fuel-efficient hybrids and approve Gulf Coast projects to liquefy and ship natural gas abroad.

The 43 million is inaccurate but that is Ok.  I am not going to take the time and modify the card.  I am only expressing my feelings.  As I wonder about how the cosmos will deal with those who kill our future and ensure our demise.

[TDoS]

Her last chart seems to predict Nuke energy will take over and produce everything necessary when the FFs run out.  This does not seem likely.

RE

That isn't Gail's chart. It is Hubbert's chart. Are us old farts so challenged nowadays that we forget the work of great scientists and assign it to retired actuaries who predicted global peak oil in 2008 and were so embarassed by their oily ignorance they had to create another website to hide from the laughter that ensued as to the exact level of "oil knowledge" that actuaries have?

Come on folks! We might be geriatric but we aren't REQUIRED to let our brains atrophy as well!

[RE]

Gail didn't create oilprice.com, she's not even on staff there.  They just pick up her articles occassionally.  She still runs her blog Our Finite World.

RE